Some connected LINKS

Friday, September 18, 2015

Most of you, my friends and
acquaintances, will probably not enjoy this Rosh Hashana letter. Nevertheless,
bear with me as I rant and rave out loud about some of those turbulences
gnawing at my insides.

Our Jewish New Year is a difficult time
for me (then again, Yom Kippur is even more difficult). All of Israel wishes
each other a happy new year full of prosperity, sweetness, fulfillment and, of
course, PEACE. We do this year after year, whether through greetings, whether
through prayers in whatever denominational synagogues we attend (once a year or
more), or at home with family, and even when only silently within the deepest
corridors of our hearts. We are participating in a communal desire for a
communal happier New Year in which none of us forget to mention the hope for
PEACE. This is true for all of us, those who are labeled "leftist" or
"rightist", secular free-thinkers or God-fearing orthodox, Ashkenazi
"voozvoozim" or Mizrachi "chach'-chach'im". None of
us forget greeting the New Year with our wish for PEACE.

And yet…… and yet…….. so much of what
we do year after year through our legitimate representatives, whether local or
national, are the very things that can only take us further and further away
from our communally hypocritical wish for peace. And we bear them by our
silence or by our sanctimonious parlor room head shaking. OK……….. OK……… not
everyone is hypocritical…… maybe that's a bit harsh. Some of us simply don't
believe peace is possible – so how can our actions spoil things? And some of us
are simply afraid of voicing an opinion about a situation that is "too
late"…….. like closing the stable doors after the horses are already
galloping in the meadow. And evidently there are around us who actually believe
that bringing peace is the hollowed job of our Lord…….. and he will do so in
his good time.

Yes, I'm frustrated, often confused,
always angry, sometimes in a state of paralysis at the absurd immoral political
actions taken by my own government, my own people.

My government has brought us a gold
medallion in the field of economics by greatly widening the gap between poor
and rich, by privatizing fields as far apart as unemployment and social
services in schools, and by creating veiled or open partnerships with the
handful of oligarch families who run our economy. And perhaps a cold frost has
also entered our economic hearts. (example?: last week a man took his own life
in Tel Aviv. Ten years ago the laying of a new highway caused his building to
collapse. Since then he has been trying to get fair restitution from the
highway department or the Tel Aviv municipality…..ten years!..... Last month,
out of desperation, while still homeless, he put up a small makeshift structure
on his own building's plot. Last week the municipality ordered the structure
torn down for lack of proper permits. This week he was buried. I know…. I've
written this telegraphically, and there are many more details, but none of the
details contain an expression of "heart".)

My government has brought us a
substantial pile of gold medallions in the field of anti-Peace, through our
relentless policies of military occupation in the West Bank. We consistently
pay official lip-service and homage to some "peace process" and to
our willingness to live side by side with a Palestinian State, while most of
our government ministers have stated openly they oppose such a State and will
always be against it. Our government, through our military occupation, has gone
a long way, and is continuing, to make life unbearable for Palestinians living
in 60% of the West bank (so called Area C), driving them away into the
fragmented Areas A and B, and leading us on our way to the formal annexation of
Area C to Israel proper, and the creation of a number of separate Ghettos in
Areas A and B with a population still under military rule and with very meager
civilian rights. True…….. compromises need to be made by both sides of
our Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and our Palestinian neighbors (prisoners,
actually) are also still far from a possible compromise. Nevertheless, we as
the occupying power are doing everything to show that we have no desire to
reach any kind of modus vivendi, and are seeing to it that soon no compromise
for a Palestinian State will be possible or viable. Why? Whhhyyyyyy?..................
we used to say that it is all in the name of "security". Today our
government no longer hides only behind the security issue. Most of our
ministers say openly that the West Bank is totally ours as an historical
inheritance which is most definitely punctuated by the ancient promise of our
God. Obviously, we cannot give up what God gave us. Please understand…….today
our government actually speaks also for GOD. We are no longer Zionists who have
come back home to shelter a people who had no place in the worldly scheme of
things. No longer simply a "Jewish Democracy" (with all the
problematics of that phrase). Today we are a Jewish Democra-Theocracy and an
instrument of GOD.

We are inwardly obsessed with our
Jewishness. No longer do we strive to be "a light unto the nations".
We have slowly adopted an ultra-nationalistic xenophobia. We are in the
clutches of fear, a fear of our island becoming a little less "Only
Jewish" by accepting a few others into our midst. We are doing our best
not to integrate refugees and asylum seekers who have already succeeded
entering our borders. We are only looking for ways to ship them off to other
countries, or back to where they came from, while burdening their stay here
with hardship upon hardship.

Our Jewish xenophobia is turned also
towards our Israeli citizens who are not of our tribe. The expropriation of
Arab village lands, unemployment issues and other minority discriminations
among our Arab citizens are already old hat. Today small Bedouin villages in
the south are being destroyed and their people dispossessed in the name of
"integration" that frees land for more Jewish villages. Since
September 1st 33,000 children of Arab Christen schools are on
strike to protest actions by our Ministry of Education, actions which have
gravely reduced the budgeting of their schools, while Jewish Religious schools
are blessed with budgets many times higher. They are not of our tribe.

I know, I know. I am told that nothing
is simple, there are more explanations. We are in a complicated world.
But Hey………the truth is, sometimes things are as simple as they sound.

I am told by journalistic surveys that
my kind of "leftist" approach to the metamorphosing of my country
from a democratic State which is a homeland for the Jewish People to an entity
I need to struggle against, is a dying approach which is becoming more and more
miniscule as time goes on, as the realities of the Middle East become more
aggravated and unstable, and as religious and xenophobic extremism overtakes
logic and humanism within our society and government. I am told that I am part
of a dying generation, my children and theirs will evidently be an even tinier
democratic and humanistic Jewish minority here (I already have grandchildren
joining protests I can be proud of).

I am told that history is leaving us
behind. I don't accept it. In my lifetime I've seen dramatic changes in our
world that were never thought possible moments before. It could happen here……..
maybe. It seems to me that it can happen only if we keep a flame burning……. or
at least a candle……… if we keep talking, whispering, YELLING about our desire
for a democratic and humanistic society in a State which is also the home of
the Jewish People, and a "light onto the nations" rather than a
darkness onto itself.

Meanwhile……………… I have difficulties
with our well wishes of PEACE from one to another. Rather I wish everyone who
also thinks we are going in a wrong direction would leave their parlor room,
find a podium of one sort of another, and begin talking, whispering and YELLING
all about it. That's how we'll keep the candle burning.

If any of you, my friends and
acquaintances, feel the need to keep the candle burning, feel free to pass this
letter on to others………….. perhaps it will help us get closer to a SHANA TOVA.

Thursday, March 14, 2013

57. I counted. 57. There were
57 drivers who took time out this past week to wait at some border
"machsom" in Northern Israel and drive Palestinian children with
their parents to hospital appointments in Israel, and back to the "machsom"
till the next time. All volunteers, last week, next week, and so forth.

As so many of my previous
letters obviously attest, the issues of minority oppression in Israel and the
forging of a modus vivendi with the Palestinians in the conquered territories are
the most critical for the survival of liberal Zionism and the future of our
small country.

I've always found my ability
to have an impact on those issues fairly limited….limited first and foremost by
my own endowed abilities, but also by other important responsibilities such as
work, family, community, as well as, perhaps, a certain laziness at latching
onto activist opportunities with others.

Nevertheless, I've attempted
to set aside a day a week to join with others in an attempt to breech the walls
that hamper progress towards those two issues. For a number of years I joined
other dedicated Israelis in chaperoning West Bank Palestinian farmers to their
fields and groves as protection against the harassment and violence of our Jewish
settlers. As this became physically more difficult for me, I found and joined a
group of other Israelis dedicated to driving ailing Palestinian children and
their parents from the West Bank to hospitals in Israel. I've
"toured" the Palestinian West Bank from the cave dwellers of the
southern Hevron thru the villages of East Jerusalem and Northward to the
villages near Shchem and into the city of Jenin. In Belien I was enveloped by
the horrible smoke of tear-gas grenades. In Sheich-Jerach I sat with families
evicted from their homes. I've spent some days in the Beduin areas east of Beer
Sheva, and was enveloped in more gas grenades while demonstrating in
Um-el-Fachem against the physical provocations of extreme right-wing Jewish
Israelis. And, of course, I've written a good number of long letters to a long mailing
list with the hope that a few hundred, or at least a few tens will actually
read and be influenced.

In all of this I've always
been a foot-soldier, or perhaps more correctly…a soldier of fortune, never
joining any particular political group, never following a particular leader,
but also never taking the initiative to lead others, almost always being a
loner or piggy-backing on what others have organized. This, of course, because
of my endowed nature and those limitations I mentioned above.

During one of my rides from
the Jelamy barrier (near Jenin) to Rambam hospital in Haifa, the father of a
child with some breathing disorder (something I'm personally familiar with)
asked me if I'm paid to do this mission. I answered that all of us drivers are
volunteers. He looked bewildered and puzzled, as I was probably bewildered by
his not knowing. He asked "Why?". I remember answering something
about the need to help people and also the need to show a bond of friendship
between Israeli and Palestinian. Yet his question stuck in my mind as some
questions often do, and I know that there are a few more answers I give to
myself, and the answers are so much more complicated.

Perhaps, in the final
analysis, I've been doing my small part in an attempt at a more organized and
orderly retreat within a battle that can't be won. Perhaps I'm simply one more loser
within a liberal Zionist minority
squirming to clutch at straws while the heavy machinery of a
fundamentalist-nationalistic future drives on with assurance. Perhaps I'm an
extreme pessimist vowing to go down fighting. Then again, I think with a sigh of relief, perhaps I'm really just an
extreme optimist waiting for the "big change".

That "big change"
certainly did not come with these last elections. About 25% of non-Arab party
seats in our newly elected Knesset have placed the Palestinian issue as a major
item in their agenda. More than 55% have placed the yearning for a Greater
Israel at the core of their agenda whether through nationalistic,
fundamentalistic, or messianic reasons. The rest of our Knesset's non-Arab
seats (Lapid's Yesh-Atid) have taken up other issues as their core agenda while
lining up politically (with Bennet and Habayit Hayehudi) to assure that Greater
Israel has an even greater voice and influence in our new government. Greater
Israel voices will therefore make up about two thirds of our new government
coalition. The coalition also includes a less than 9% fig leaf strongly supporting a
Two-State policy. The current fig leaf, Tzipi Livni's Hatnua, will be even less
effective than Labor's dismal effectiveness in the previous government. Our new
government will not promote a Peace Process based on compromise and Two States
for Two Peoples. It will talk "peace-process" while promoting the
continued and gradual evolvement of a Greater Israel with a Palestinian
population oppressed by lack of citizenship and equal rights, while harassed by
security precautions to nip rebellion in the bud. The Greater Israel part of our
new coalition has also purified itself of its more democratic voices
(Meridor, Begin, Eitan, Rivlin). We Leftist-Liberal cry-babies are "in for
it".

The Palestinian from Jenin,
while sitting next to me on the way to Rambam hospital, asked me
"why?", why do I do this?. I answered what I answered, but I think I know
the real reason:

There is the probability that
some years from now my grandchildren will be pondering the question of whether
to leave my country. My country may, by then, have formally become that Greater
Israel I fear……the jingoist-fundamentalist-messianic land of apartheid, upheld
by its Spartan militarism. In the hope that my grandchildren will be part of
the small minority Liberal-Zionist opposition to that reality, I expect they
will ask piercing questions of their ancestors, such as: "Where were you
when there was still a chance to do otherwise?"………and I will be able to
answer them: "I did not turn away. I did not do nothing. I did something.
Not enough. I know. I'm sorry. But I did some things. And, also, last week (so
many years ago) I was one of those 57 drivers from Jenin to Rambam
hospital."

Thursday, January 3, 2013

Imagine the Tea Party taking complete control of the
Republican Party, and winning the elections in the U.S., including both
congressional houses………. And actually beginning to pursue policies they hold
dear to their beliefs. Imagine ………

Well, two years later, if you don't like it……. You could
probably change it.

Here in Israel, after these coming elections (Jan. 22) the
outlook portends that our own Tea
Parties, regardless of the bickering among themselves, will hold an extreme
right-wing mandate for at least the coming four years…… enough time to cause
many irreversible changes and damages to
the fragile formula of a liberal,
democratic, Jewish and Zionist State.

I have been worried for a long time. Today I am past
worrying. I am trying to build for myself a Plan-B as to how I and others could still stay actively afloat as an opposition with hope within the kind of Government and country which are becoming more and
more of a reality.

O.K. ……………..and now for this letter.

A couple of weeks ago I got into an exchange of opinions
with a friend who is certainly far from a Bibi or Likud fan. Nevertheless we
evidently have a difference of opinion about the road onto which Bibi is consciously
taking us. I thought the exchange (probably too long for most readers) may
interest a few of you, so here it is:

Exchange of letters

21.12.2012

From a friend to his mailing list (actually a second
mailing on the subject to that mailing list):

I was pleased to see some discussion of my analysis about
the war [8 days of Gaza the previous month. A.S.] and its consequences.
I will partially disagree with some of the comments and will express
those disagreements but I want to emphasize that for the most part I am in
agreement in general with those comments.

First, as an Israeli I am also quite pleased that Obama was
re-elected. Romney's father, George, was a good governor of Michigan when I was
in graduate school there, and according to what I have read, Mitt was a fairly
good governor of Massachusetts. But as a national leader he would have had to
placate the right wing of the Republican party and I doubt that it would have
been good for the USA or Israel.

It seems to me that Obama has come a long way in his
understanding of the Middle East since his first year or two in office, as he
watched his original Middle East policies crash and burn and I think that this
will benefit both the USA and Israel.

As for Israel, the latest public opinion poll conducted here
shows that most Israelis are in favor of a two-state solution. Polls
carried out among the Palestinian population are not nearly so clear on that
issue, with a majority of the Palestinians being in favor of negotiations and
being in favor of armed resistance. I think that these polls may or may not be
accurate but I think that the leaders of each side see their publics more or
less in the same way; that is, as reflected in the polls. One consequence is
that Bibi has tried to move his Likud party to the center and along the way
publicly proclaiming his favoring the two-state solution including a
Palestinian Arab state. Unfortunately in the last set of primaries, the Likud
Knesset list has taken a couple of steps back towards the right. Bibi now faces
the same kind of political dilemma that Romney faced when confronted by a large
tea-party faction. He couldn't win without them but not disassociating himself
from them cost him votes among moderates. Bibi has Feiglin and his friends
while losing some of the moderate Likudniks from the party list. I suspect that
Bibi's combining of party lists with Lieberman's party was an attempt to
jettison some of the more extremist elements in the Likud. It's not the first
time in Likud history that this sort of thing has happened. Menahem Begin
insisted the Liberal Party make up about one-third of his list, even though
that party attracted very few voters. What was important to Begin was who that
combination kept off the list as opposed to who was on it.

After the vote in the UN on Palestinian representation, Bibi
announced more settlements in the West Bank. Actually he didn't but appearances
rather than substance are what count around here. I think that by and
large this was a sop to his own right wing to keep them quiet about having
their representation in the Likud list reduced by combining with Lieberman's
list. The elections are one month away and as long as he can maintain shalom
bayit within his party he has the election in the bag. The Israeli left
and center are fragmented and it remains to be seen as to whether or not they
will keep their collective egos in check and concentrate their campaigns on criticizing
Bibi and the right; or will spend their time in internecine political warfare
among themselves. Shelly Yacimovitz's Labor party caught a break in this
regard when Amir Peretz left the party and joined Tzipi Livni's party thus
helping greatly to bring some shalom bayit to the Labor party. (By the way, I
will most likely be voting for the Labor party this time around.)

Shelly has been running the kind of campaign (based mainly
on social issues) that the Labor party has failed to run in decades and has lost
election after election because of it. I think that Bibi's announcement about
settlements was also bait for the Labor party to make the election about peace
with the Palestinians. Shelly, showing (IMHO) great political sense, did not
rise to the bait. Much to my surprise she has turned out to be one smart
lady.

As to the world's reaction to Bibi's settlement
announcement; it reminds me a little about something said about the UN back in
the 70's and 80's. If the Arab states proposed a resolution to the General
Assembly that the Earth was flat, it would probably be adopted by a vote of 92
to 4 with 38 abstentions. Malke mentioned something about the moral high
ground. It seems to me that if such a thing exists, it plays no part in world
politics. You may remember that back when Rabin was prime minister and the
government was left of center the UN General Assembly adopted the resolution
stating that Zionism is racism. That resolution was rescinded by the UN General
Assembly when Yitzkah Shamir was prime minister in a right-wing likud led
government. If you think that Israel had achieved a moral high ground under
Shamir's administration and the UN acted accordingly … well, let's just say
that I disagree.

By the way, Abbas faces the same sort of problem that Bibi
faces only in a more severe form. Not only does he have to compete with the
Hamas but the Fatah elements in the PA are pressuring him to go for Palestinian
victory instead of a compromise peace agreement. Helen (and most of the Israeli
citizenry) is correct that a one-state solution would be a disastrous end to
the State of Israel. That is why Abbas has set conditions for resuming
negotiations such that agreeing to the conditions would be equivalent to
agreeing to a one-state solution. Right now neither Bibi nor Abbas want
negotiations. Bibi will be in a better position to engage in negotiations after
the elections. Abbas is in a pre-election situation but with no new elections
in sight. He may be in this situation forever or until time and biology run
their course. At any rate there is nothing short of committing ourselves to
national suicide that will bring Abbas to the negotiating table. Certainly
there will be no pressure put on the Palestinians to negotiate. Indeed the idea
of putting any pressure on the Palestinians is completely absent from
discussions about the Middle East, I suspect even in sincerely pro-peace
organizations like J-Street.

Anyway, it's about 6:30 AM on Friday morning here and I have
rambled on for long enough. Soon my better half will be up and we will start
cleaning the house for Shabbat. Have a nice weekend and please feel free to
respond, even if it's to tell me that I don't know what I am talking about.

Have a nice weekend,

=========================================================

22.12.2012

From Aaron Sharif to a few recepients of the ubove
letter

Being Iris (my wife) gets all the list's messages and I end up reading
some of them, I ran into the sender's latest assessment of what's
happening politically here in our country. I have a few serious
disagreements about some of what he writes and I thought I should tell you
about them. ……………………….

First and foremost: The sender seems to paint Bibi as the prudent good
guy whose every action is mostly done to keep the bad guys down…….

Accordingly, Bibi is ideologically/politically in the Center between
Left and Right, he really wants a two-state compromise, is doing his very best
to bring the Likud party into the Center, and it's only the other guys, the bad
guys in his own party, and those utterly non-compromising Palestinians, who are
thwarting his every desire for a two-state solution.

To me this is a perversion of what is actually happening. The great
majority of the Likud party is against a two-state compromise. This was true
before Feiglin and his crowd, and remains truer than ever today. Most of those
who changed their positions and saw that there are no other viable alternatives,
had to leave the Likud Party. Arik Sharon, Olmert, Tzipy Livneh, split off from
the Likud for that very reason. The remaining few (very few), those who stayed
on as relics of nostalgia, have now been kicked into the far back benches of
the Likud, with zero influence over political events. Bibi stayed on, and on
top, because he supports those who are against a two-state policy, and they
know this. His only real difference with Feiglin is the kind of one-state
target they are shooting for. Feiglin's would be totally theocratic. Bibi's
would be a bit more democratic and secular. Both would rule over apartheid
enclaves of Palestinians. Feiglin declares things openly. Bibi is a more
perspective and shrewd politician, has a smoother tongue, and knows that what
counts is what is actually done on ground zero rather than what is said.

On Ground Zero, meaning the West Bank, Bibi has supported, done, and
implemented policies which have made a two-state resolve slip further and
further away from reality. During his few years as finance minister and his
many years as Prime Minister, settlements in the West Bank, both pseudo-legal
and illegal, received constantly growing portions of our national budget. Area
C, comprising 60 percent of the West Bank has been nearly cleansed of Arabs in
a strategic process of making it a de-facto part of Israel proper. In doing so,
we have knowingly split the rest of the West bank into a potpourri of smaller
uncombined enclaves. The resolve to build settlements in area E1 is simply part
of this ongoing policy. E1 is meant to drive a long arm eastward from Jerusalem
towards the Jordan River, making accessibility so much more difficult between
the southern and northern West Bank. We will do all that we can to see to it
that even an only semi-viable Palestinian State becomes impossible.

It is absurd to suppose, as the writer seems to do, that Bibi joined
with Lieberman in order to make the Party list less extremist in its jingoism.
Aside from hearing Lieberman himself, please listen to the others who stand
beside and behind Lieberman. Some of the most racist and prejudicial
statements against both Israeli Arabs and against the possibility of a
Palestinian State have come from this quarter of Bibi's alliance. (Though
Lieberman once wrote a scenario for a separate Palestinian Entity, he openly
based it on getting rid of most Israeli Arabs and having overwhelming control
over that separate entity.) At most, Bibi thought to minimize religious
fanaticism (Feiglinism) through this move. But mainly the alliance was done to
make sure he has first crack at forming a government after the elections,
rather than Shelly and her rejuvenated Labor Party if it succeeded in making an
alliance with a reborn Olmert (but he remained stranded) or a rekindled Tzipy Livne
(which Tzipy turned down). The next government will be a small but firm
majority coalition of Bibi's Likud+Lieberman parties together with Bennet's
Bayit Yehudi and the Shas Religious Parties. They will have the support of
other smaller extreme right-wing parties. If Labor or Atid join the coalition
it will be because Bibi is willing to show the world how moderate he is. They
will have as little effect on Israeli-Palestinian policies as they had in our
present government.

I agree with the writer's assessment of Abbas's situation, but fully
disagree with his blanket assertion that "there is nothing short
of committing ourselves to national suicide that will bring Abbas to the
negotiating table". That may be true as an end result to negotiation
demands, but not for the start of negotiations. Abbas has consistently said he
will sit for negotiations as long as construction by us Israelis in the
West Bank (including East Jerusalem) will be stopped during the negotiations.
We Israelis don't go for this and say that we already did so for a while, and
Abbas still refused to negotiate. We overlook the fact that during that time we
refused to include the construction in East Jerusalem, and continued in the
West Bank with many places which already waved a permit (I was there to see the
construction). Our Bibi refused then and refuses today to halt all
construction behind the green line (including East Jerusalem) during
negotiations. I fail to see how such a demand is "nothing short of
committing ourselves to national suicide" in order to bring Abbas to the
negotiating table. True, Abbas ( and also us) has other demands as well
(such as to receive an initial map of what we think will be left of the West
Bank to the Palestinians), but they don't impede the start of negotiations. We
aren't even willing to try him out and say "O.K., we'll stop construction
on the day negotiations begin, and continue construction the very day negations
fall apart". We don't want negotiations. So when our writer thinks "Bibi
will be in a better position to engage in negotiations after the
elections", I need to add that Bibi will go to negotiations only if
terribly pressured against his will, and will do his sincerest to see to it that
the negotiations lead nowhere. Of course this may also be the end-game
situation on the Palestinian side, but we will never really know while we have
a government that the great majority of its members (including the Prime
Minister) are against a two-state compromise.

Netanyahu has been the most influential force in the Likud Party for the
past two whole decades, the majority of these years with the Likud Party
heading our Government. Of the last 15 years Netanyahu was an important
minister in 4 of them, and a prime minister in 7 of them. He has definitely
mobilized the Likud Party to create indelible chapters in our history. Soon
those chapters may bring us to a point of no return.

So……I simply can't be as lenient with Bibi as Frankie's letter seems to
permit.

(As always…there is so much more to say about the above. I also have a
few more points of disagreement with the writer's assessments: e.g., reading of
opinion poll results, Obama and the Middle East. But I've chattered enough in
this letter. )

My very best to you,

aaron

23.12.2012

From the
"sender" directly to Aaron

Hi Aaron,

First, thank you for your
response. It helps my ego to know that someone takes my ramblings seriously
enough to disagree. ………. I will reply below where I think that you are wrong or
where I think you got me wrong. ………..

First, I don't hate Bibi or
any other Israeli politician. I get the feeling that some think that I am
supposed to hate him just as I was supposed to hate the Fascist expansionist
Menahem Begin, who negotiated Israel's first peace treaty with an Arab state
and withdrew from three-fourths of the land that Israel captured in 1967, or
hate the militarist war monger Ariel Sharon, of whom it was predicted that
within six months of his becoming prime minister Israel would be at war with
all of our Middle Eastern neighbors and who pulled us out of Gaza and split the
Likud party forming Israel's first major centrist party. So, no, I won't hate
Bibi but I won't describe him as a prudent good guy either. In his second term
he has proven to be a canny politician who is mainly concerned about winning
and keeping high political office. I don't know what goes on in his head
intellectually or ideologically but his behavior can be observed and it has
been to pull the Likud party to the political center because that's where the
votes are. He publicly announced his agreement with the two-state solution in a
speech at Bar Ilan University, in other words to people who make up his core
constituency. It was not only a statement of his position but the beginning of
his attempt to persuade his supporters that the two-state solution should be
supported by them. It was an example of political leadership that was part of
the process of bringing the Likud to the center.

Bibi stayed on top because he
still has the majority of his party supporting him. Feiglin and his buddies
would like to see Bibi removed from leadership and replaced with a more
likeminded leader. Bibi wil use every political maneuver that he can to get the
Feiglin crowd downgraded within the Likud because, whether or not he agrees
with them, they are a threat to his position and they are an electoral handicap
with the voting public.

If I agree with you on one
point, it is that way too much money has been spent on the settlements in the
West Bank and in Gaza before they were withdrawn. The E1 issue is a bit of a
fraud as far as Palestinian contiguity is concerned. The "long arm"
reaches out about two miles from Jerusalem to Maaleh Adumim. Beyond the
group of Israeli settlements at Maaleh Adumim there is about another 11 miles
of Palestinian territory until the banks of the Dead sea. I might point out
that from the Security barrier adjacent to Kalkilya to the Mediterranean, the
width of Israel is only about nine miles. Certainly if Israel is not
considered two enclaves then a solution to north south travel problems with the
Palestinians is available for implementation.

Now here is where I disagree
with you and most others, including the right wing nut cases who also see the
settlements as barriers to peace. The settlements are not what is preventing
negotiations. In fact, if one were to look at the Palestinian situation
logically, rather than emotionally or by adopting propaganda narratives, one
would see that the settlements are motivations to negotiate. Before you go
ballistic I would suggest you consider that if Arafat had accepted the Clinton
parameters at Camp David there would be at least 200,000 less settlers in the
West Bank today. The same goes for Abbas in the past four years (and even more
so in the next four). The logical way for the Palestinians to stop settlement
expansion is to demand unconditional negotiations and reach a compromise peace
agreement with Israel as quickly as possible. There are several reasons
why the Palestinians have not followed this policy and settlement expansion is
not one of them. And by the way, just as a reminder, I think that settlement
expansion is a very bad idea for all of us Jews.

No one listens to Lieberman
but just assume that he is Stalin reincarnated (unless they are Stalinists). An
example of that is in the above paragraph where it talks about Lieberman's
plans to get rid of most Israeli Arabs. I suppose this brings to mind visions
of Israeli Arabs being driven out of their homes and into the desert or some
such. This wasn't what Lieberman advocated though many people, perhaps
including Aaron, are left with the impression that he did. By the way
that Lieberman advocates any sort of two-state solution puts him to the left of
the Labor party of the 1970's and 80's. Mention of the Shas party is also
interesting. I know that we are supposed to hate Shas and Rabbi Ovadia Yosef.
However, when Begin negotiated the withdrawal from Sinai, Rabbi Shlomo Goren
(you remember him, the liberal rabbi who jumped out of airplanes with the
Tzanchanim) issued a Halachic ruling that forbid giving back conquered
territory. It was Rabbi Ovadia Yosef who issued the Halachic ruling that
basically left that question up to the political rulers of the state, thus
giving religious legitimacy to Begin's peace policies. So, no, I won't hate
Shas or Rabbi Yosef. I won't agree with them on a lot of things either.
However, they have a constituency which demands social justice and the
potential for a partnership with the Labor party is therefore not out of the
question.

Abbas has set three
preconditions to start negotiations. Israel must agree to
pull back to the 1967 lines. Israel must freeze all construction. Israel must
agree to accept all of the Palestinian refugees back within the green lines.
The only alteration of these demands is the settlement construction freeze
which was added to the other two when Bibi was elected. Abbas has been fairly
consistent about these demands because his constituency has been educated to
expect their fulfillment. Not long ago Abbas went on Israeli TV and indicated
that the Palestinians no longer demanded right of return for the
"refugees". He immediately back-tracked on that statement when
he had to face his own constituents. Here is a newspaper account from Ha'aretz:

I will reiterate that two of
these three conditions are invitations to national suicide. The settlement
freeze is thrown in because of the political difficulties it would cause Bibi.

Well, let's see. Natanyu in
his first term decimated the Likud which more or less dumped him, leaving
Sharon to clean up the mess. Bibi came back after Sharon split the party and
proceeded to move the Likud to the Israeli center picking up bits and pieces of
the party that had followed Sharon to the center and putting Humpty Dumpty back
together again. In the meantime the center and the left fragmented over mostly
personality issues. Where all this will lead to, I don't know. We have a month
before Bibi will probably be re-elected but in Israeli politics a month is a
long time. Moreover, Israeli politics are often effected by events and
decisions which take place elsewhere, beyond the control of our politicians,
but that effect us profoundly.

Nu? Now it's your turn.

24.12.2012

From Aaron to the "sender"

NO, we've done this before. I don't intend getting into a long back and
forth debate with you regarding the direction taken by our government and the
reasons and ramifications of such. I trust that your own heart and desires for
our future belong in the right place, and I'd rather argue at length with those
who think quite the opposite but are still willing to listen.

Nevertheless, I can't but include a few comments on your response to my
response:

No, it’s not about "hating" Bibi. It’s about knowing where
he's taking us. Learning from past History needs to be done judiciously. Please
don't place Bibi neither as a Begin nor as a Ben-Guryon. Nor is he an Arik
Sharon or Olmert who came to the realization that in order to change course
they needed to leave the Likud. Bibi isn't leaving. He isn't going to change
course. He is deepening his reliance on a Party and its leadership who state
openly their objection to a 2-state compromise. Our next President will most
likely be from the Likud and states openly that he is for a Greater Israel
scenario….. and he's one of the few "good guys" left in the Likud
leadership. Bibi got forced into his announcement at Bar-Ilan, but is doing a
wonderful job at scuttling the 2-state direction, at giving Abbas lots of
inducements to refuse negotiations, and at bringing us closer to the One State
status which will mortally endanger our Zionism, or our Democracy, or probably
both.

As for Bibi's reaction to the Feiglin crowd, don't mistake internal
political tactics for long range strategic motives, directions and ideologies.
Just as there are internal tensions for getting out the votes between the Likud
and the Bayit Hayehudi Parties, so are there internal tactics within the Likud
itself regarding leadership and its color. But all this is happening within a
consensus of objection to any kind of Palestinian State. Bibi has always been,
and remains, in that consensus.

As for E1, strategically it has lots to do with breaking up the West
bank into North and South. The settlement (and de-facto annexation) enterprise
has learned and operated much on the premise of Dunam after Dunam, upgrading it
to square mile after mile. E1 is the second leap forward on that principal,
between Jerusalem and the Jordan. (The first leap was enlarging and building up
our Jewish population in East Jerusalem way beyond the original 1967 borders of
East Jerusalem). Don't worry, there is a third leap already sitting on the
desk, probably heading west from the Jordan valley which we fully control
within Area-C. Likewise, your argument of "fraud", using our 9-mile
waistline as an example is a bit weak. Aside from what I wrote above about
"leap" stages, check out the difference in geographical terrain.

You are mostly mistaken about Abbas's prior conditions for opening
negotiations. Two of your three conditions are statements of unequivocal
demands during negotiations; just as we have our own unequivocal demands which
we say are non-negotiable (e.g. recognizing us specifically as a
"Jewish" state). Perhaps all of these mutual “unequivocals” will
destroy the negotiations. Perhaps not. But for initially opening talks only one
thing is needed from us: a total freeze of construction during the talks,
including East Jerusalem. We refuse to do that even as a ploy to "call his
bluff" and gain points in the international political game.

You are certainly right about politics being able to take a variety of
turns (such as Shas going with Labor, as you wrote). This is our reason for
saying that there is hope for change regardless of how dismal things may look
like today. This is a good reason for continuing to put up a struggle for
change. But as a rule, the struggle is not with you or about your political
positions, which are probably somewhere in the same neighborhood as mine. My
problem was mainly with your assessments. Therefore, it is moot to continue
arguing with you when we should both be out there arguing and convincing the general
Israeli public.

I know…. I know….. I know….. you feel the urge to respond (I know the
feeling), and perhaps you will. Nevertheless, you are not my target, and though
there is so much more to say, I'll do and discontinue with the above……
and that's it.

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Unfortunately, A two state modus-vivendi for the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict is on its way out. It seems less and less feasible
under today's circumstances:

1. Palestinian conditions for such an eventuality are far from
acceptable to us Israelis.

2. Our Israeli conception of such an eventuality is far from
acceptable to Palestinians.

3. Our constant Israeli drive at expanding Jewish settlement and
"government land" in the West Bank, while "adopting" Area C
(see below) has made a viable Palestinian State almost impossible
geographically.

4. Palestinians, recognizing the growing geographical unviability,
are becoming quite satisfied with the possible alternative of being annexed
into Israel, and eventually defeating the Jewish Zionist state through the
reality of demography.

True, the Palestinian Authority is trying a bid via the UN to
become a recognized State, and perhaps it will legally succeed. Such a success
would put Israel in a weaker legal position as an occupying power, and make our
legal arguments even less tenable in the eyes of the world. But this legal
maneuver would still change little on the ground. The above circumstances would
still hold true. Little would change in the difficulties of occupation, in the
expansion of settlement, and in the probable lack of desire on both political
sides to actually "want" a two-state compromise.

A two-state compromise, based on maps drawn by either Barak or Olmert, could
have been implemented by us in the West Bank even unilaterally, without yet
relinquishing our military control of the area. It would have meant giving "area
C", which constitutes about 60% of the West Bank a similar status to that
in areas A or B. Of course this would mean the end of easy settlement expansion
into Area C. It would also mean the relocation of many settlements (against
every grain in our present leadership's silo). This would also mean
relinquishing a good deal of the present limitations on economic development. This
would have given the ability to gradually build up and test the geographical and
institutional viability of a Palestinian State.But this also would have assured us of enough military control when
needed until we came (if ever) to a feasible mutual compromise agreement with
the Palestinians over issues which seem today uncompromisable. It may even have
led us to some type of Federation which still would leave us a greater latitude
and freedom in the realm of army and defense. (This of course, is what we should
have done in Gaza….. Getting the settlements out – definitely YES; but leaving
the army IN until reaching a mutual agreement along with the West Bank. Yossi
Beilin said something like it then, and I totally agreed, but our governments
no longer listened to us cry-baby, goody-goody, crazy Leftists. Not then, and certainly
not today.)

(If you know everything about Areas A, B, and C in the West Bank,
skip this paragraph; otherwise, read …..and weep or smile…..depending on your
political inclination.) Between 1993-95 the Oslo agreements between Israel and
the PA temporarily divided the West Bank into three areas of control, A+B+C.
Areas A and B constituted the populated areas of the West Bank and ceded much security
and civilian control to the Palestinian Authority. Area C gave Israel complete security
and civilian control. Area C was a reasonable Israeli desire to have a
temporary defense posture around all large population areas in the West Bank.
It therefore took all the lands that surrounded those population areas and left
the population areas in A+B as cantons with meager lands of their own
surrounding them. (This is like taking all the land between Tel-Aviv and
Hertzeliya, between Herzeliya and Natanya, between Natanya and Haifa, and from
there till Nahariya and naming it as one district completely surrounding all these
cities and their suburbs.) Of course this was temporary and was to last no more
than five years, and mainly as a defense measure till we get the Oslo
agreements moving.

Meanwhile, 20 years later, Area C has become the greatest
permanent gift to our Right-Wing governments who are looking for ways to
establish as much of a Greater Israel as possible. Why is that?? Well…… Area C
is no longer there as a temporary defense measure. Area C is 62% of the West
bank, surrounding all the population cantons of A+B, while therefore holding
only about 5% of the Palestinian population itself. Area C is convenient for
settling Israelis and has therefor seen a wondrous growth of Jewish settlements
surrounding most cantons of areas A and B. Area C is also suitable for pronouncing it as
government or military land, regardless of actual ownership. (And, of course,
with only 5% of the Palestinian population, it makes it a lot easier to find
ways of making Palestinian life in Area C difficult as an incentive to move on,
or, as is being done in the Hevron area and east of Jerusalem, actually forcing
people out. Given enough time, we may even get area C to be completely
"Arab-Rein".)

A little demography: Area C has today somewhere between
80-100,000 Palestinians. It has about 400,000 Jewish settlers (including 50,000
students in yeshivot and other facilities). East Jerusalem, de-jure annexed to Israel
and a basic bone of contention, already has an additional 200,000 Jews adjacent to
Area C.

And so…….here we are. We failed to set up some type of two-state
situation, and we have succeeded in creating geographic and demographic developments
in most of the West Bank which make such further endeavor assuredly useless. We
are on our way to a de-facto (and perhaps later de-jure) annexation of at least
"area C" into the State of Israel while leaving 40% of the West Bank
as many small separate cantons with perhaps two million (!!) Palestinians and
growing, and each individual canton surrounded by the greater "Area C".

Our right wing leadership sees all this as a win-win situation.
We will have annexed most of Greater Israel, while resolving the demographic
problem by not annexing two million Arabs into the Jewish State.

The "sane" right-wing vision of the future sees these
two million Palestinians living peacefully with municipal civil rights within
their autonomy of separate cantons, hopefully with citizenship rights in
Jordan, but without national civil rights (nor citizenship) in Israel itself. The
"non-sane" right-wing vision is certain of God's intervention in our
affairs. He will legitimize all actions we take to make life miserable for
these two million Palestinians, so as to see their exit from the promised land.
Both visions are unethical, undemocratic, apartheid oriented, and are a certain
way to keep our Army from being a Defense Force to remaining a Police Force
saddled with the need to oppress a constant and growing opposition by the
oppressed.

So where do we go from here ?? ………"we", meaning those
of us who have been fighting to preserve our Israel as a Jewish and Democratic
State with equal civil rights for all its citizens. ……. "we", meaning
those of us who have fought, protested, gotten our feet wet, and also voted for
our governments to do all possible means for arriving at a two-state
compromise.

Seems likely that those "we" will divide up into four
different categories (actually it's already happening):

Category one: Give Up. …….. Join all those leftist and
pseudo-leftists among our Jews in Israel who watched the developments from
their living-room couch and had no time or energy to walk outside and YELL ….
And fight back.

Category two: Never Give Up !! ……..continue a rear-guard action
for a two-state compromise regardless of the geographic and demographic
realities which have overtaken us and assure us that such a rear-guard action
is futile……. An expression of remaining in the world of nostalgia……. What could
have been …. If only.……….oh my, oh dear…….. at least we hold on to our
allegiance.

Category three: Give Up Zionism …….. decide there is no way to
have a Democratic Jewish State under these circumstances and begin fighting for
a Democratic State without apartheid; a state where all citizens are equal… four
million Arabs and six million Jews (Gaza is not in the picture)…… knowing that
down the line we Jews will probably no longer be a majority and will forego our
Zionist dream of a Jewish State.

Category four: Keep Searching !! …….. there may be other formulas
for two peoples living on the same land but in different worlds. ……..perhaps
some kind of Federation ……. Perhaps some kind of more extensive demographic
autonomy extending into the whole of the land of Israel. ………perhaps some kind
of…….something…….

Wait a minute…… this can't be one sided…… there needs to be a
category in which both peoples talk to each other and want to come to a formula
which each can swallow. Who knows what can happen once two peoples talk after
realizing they can't get rid of each other.

Among those of us who have realized that the two-state formula is
no longer viable today, I hear and read about a number of models based on
Categories three and four above. None, so far, seemed feasible to me (explain
and expand? ……perhaps some other time.). But I'm still in the "Keep
Searching" category, and as lame as it may sound I'm into the following
direction:

1. let's agree we can't get rid of each other…. and if so……..

2. talk and talk and talk…….till we get a compromise.

What do we talk about??

1. What we each want.

2. What we each can't give.

Hold on! …..What am I saying? …….Talk? Talk? Talk?
……..compromise??

But the compromise between what we each want and what we each
can't give will eventually bring us right back to some kind of two-state model………

So why leave it……………………………………??????

Perhaps what is no longer physically feasible today will be more
palatable tomorrow.

Once cornered (and we surely are on the way to corner ourselves),
it becomes easier to swallow.

Saturday, August 4, 2012

OK, this is a bit long.......Efraim Perlmutter is
another veteran Habonim person from D.C., living in Israel many years with
his family in Moshav Sde-Nitzan down south. He has often written wih great insight while grappling with our Israeli reality. He wrote a long response to my last
letter. Some days later I answered him. Below you will find first my (perhaps
too long) answer, followed by his response to my previous letter "Now we are Kosher".

25.7.12

Hello Efraim,

Sorry for the long delay in responding to your much
appreciated letter and comments. One of my problems in having blog-comments
reaching many mailboxes is the need to respond to many responses. It takes me a
long time….. and I am generally slow. (Though I have no doubt that most
mailboxes hit the "delete" without reading.)

I guess we really do belong to the same minority in
our country who actually tries to think of what's ahead in the future as a
result of what we do in the present. Nevertheless, we see some of the things in
the present a bit differently or at least in different shades of the same
color.

You write regarding the Levy Report "…. and this is the part you missed, it ends the ability of the
settlers to unilaterally act on their own in setting up new settlements." Unfortunately, there was no need to miss this.
For some time now the settlers had already given legitimacy to the government,
which in turn has done (among other things) its best to fund and expand all
settlements listed as "legal", and to find ways to legalize all
others, and to clear the area of "unwanted" Palestinians (most
notably in Area C). The settlers became quite happy even before the Levy
nonsense (this is regardless of the noises they make towards the government).

You also seem to think that most Israelis are in the
"Center". Perhaps…. But if so, the Center has moved considerably to
the right. Previous and future elections show this……. most prominently within
the Jewish vote. Our Jewish demography has also changed radically and bolstered
this slide of the center towards what we call "Right".

It seems a bit unfair to complain how badly Israeli
leaders from Shamir to Bibi have managed the "Peace Process".
From their point of view (which they have written about, spoken of, and acted
upon) they have succeeded beyond expectations. Greater Israel was, is, and will
remain their goal. They did everything they had to do within and around the
"Peace Process" to insure its demise. They and their many supporters
are quite satisfied with the process.

I certainly agree with you that the Palestinian
leadership has not been the greatest and most wonderful partner for
negotiations. How much we pined for a "Nelson Mandela" as a partner.
But come to think of it… Mandela had a White Partner who was convinced of the
need for change. It certainly bolstered his ability to be what he was. We have
neither a Mandela nor a White Partner.

You write"… the truth of
the matter is that since the beginning of this conflict about 90 years ago, the
Palestinians have not had much of an idea about what they wanted for themselves".
History is so much different than this belief, which is one of the fairy tales
in some of our Zionist history books. The end of WWI brought the demarcation of
countries within the Ottoman Empire according to the wishes and interests of
England and France (mainly).

Already in the early 20's Arabs of Palestine demanded
self-government after being torn away from the political possibility of Greater
Syria. Eventually, not without bumps along the way, all of the new Arab States
received self-rule…….but one…..Palestine…….and only because we, a small
minority in Palestine, were in the way with other promises from foreign rulers.
Ever since the beginning, and all the way till 1947 all Palestinian leadership
demands (through conventions, insurgence, and obstinacy) were centered on
self-rule on the basis of determination and/or elections by the local
population……something the Western world called "self-determination"
in the rest of the world. It is unfortunate to mix this up, as you do, with
Arab League politics which had their own incentives.

Don't get me wrong. I believe so deeply in our Zionist
Dream of Eretz Yisrael being our homeland where we are able to decide ourselves
about our existence and future. I have written more than once about my
underlying legitimate reasons for this. But I've also recognized the fact that
the Palestinians have had legitimate reasons for wanting the same piece of land
for themselves. I've recognized the fact that the conflict is not one of
"We know positively what we want and they are just negative". The
conflict has been one of two legitimate "Wants". We are simply
stronger and can more easily please our "want".

You write "… that most Israelis, especially those
engaged in the social issues demonstrations, have reached the conclusion that
nothing can be done until the Palestinians are ready for peace. The Israeli peace movement fell apart… over a single fact. The
Palestinians did not react in the way the peace movement predicted."To a certain degree I agree. But I think many of those
Leftists you are talking about are either my age and above, and are either dead
or spending their time at home or at a "Home". Today, those
engaged in social issues read correctly the political map and know that there
is no way of getting public support for a change in the "peace
process", being the government has a great deal of Jewish public support
in its defense, funding and expansion of the settlements. Still……I believe
you are correct in saying that many Leftists were terminated by the fact that
"The Palestinians did not react in the way
the peace movement predicted." This is also certainly one of
the aspects which aided the movement of Left to silence or Center, and the
Center to the Right.

So many of our Israelis thought that our "Peace
Process" was one of making a pleasurable arrangement between friends. We
are not friends, we are enemies …… and at most we can come to some kind of
modus vivendi which will allow us to taste and investigate the possibility of
not harming each other too much in the near future. (I dread the alternative,
for both of our peoples.) Perhaps further on down the road we may learn
that neither of us is as monstrous as we seem to be today.

In any case, my own string of thoughts about the
"Process" brings me to wish for a unilateral process if a negotiable
one is unavailable. Unfortunately, a negotiable process is not
"unavailable", it is "undesired" and a unilateral process
is therefore unavailable. (Yes, though we made every mistake possible in our
departure from Gaza, it was a better choice than having stayed there with our
settlements. No one really wants it back today. And yes, up here in the north
my family has also lived under the threat of constant katyushot for many years,
and know we shall probably return to those times …… But we are better off than
those many years we occupied southern Lebanon. And yes, our army should and can
be the arm of protection and the fist that answers aggression, rather than the
police force that legislates conquered territories in order to protect our new
settlers and settlements in those territories.) Today a negotiated process,
whether possible or not, is not at all desired by our government, who is working
diligently towards a Greater Israel, while doing all it can to show us
and the world that negotiation is not possible only because of "the other
guy".

I appreciate your asking me to comment on your "
Principles for a Palestinian-Israeli Peace Agreement." I
certainly enjoyed reading these principles, though I would think it has no way
of being taken seriously by Palestinians. It properly skirts, among other
issues, the very main immediate issue for Palestinians …….. the settlements …….
An issue considered to be the theft of private or national lands, and one that
is making the possibility of viable demarcation of a Palestinian State
absolutely untenable. As a matter of fact it validates all of the settlements….
And this needs further explanation.

Perhaps one example out of many would be easy to
understand. Israel, being the strong one in such negotiations as you propose,
would insist that areas of elections (which you propose) in the west bank would
conform to the Oslo boundaries of A, B, and C. This would even sound reasonable
to a non-knowledgeable Israeli. So let's go over some things you probably
already know about the Oslo partition of Area C.:

Area C, under complete Israeli control, was a
reasonable Israeli desire to have a temporary defense posture around all large
population areas in the West Bank. It therefore took all the lands that
surrounded those population areas and left the population areas in A+B as
cantons with meager lands of their own surrounding them. (This is like taking
all the land between Tel-Aviv and Hertzeliya, between Herzeliya and Natanya,
between Natanya and Haifa, and from there till Nahariya and naming it as one
district surrounding these cities and their suburbs.) Of course this was
temporary and mainly as a defense measure till we get the Oslo agreements
moving.

Meanwhile Area C has become the greatest permanent
gift to our Right-Wing governments who are looking for ways to establish a
Greater Israel. Why is that ?? Well…… Area C is no longer there as a temporary
defense measure. Area C is 62% of the West bank, surrounding all the population
cantons of A+B, and therefore Area C holds only about 5% of the Palestinian
population itself. Area C is great for settling Israelis and has therefor seen
a wondrous growth of Jewish settlement. Area C is great for pronouncing it as
government or military land, and absolutely great for the kind of elections
which you are proposing and in which Israel will have the upper hand in naming
election areas. 62% of the West Bank becomes Israel under your proposals. I
know….there can be other scenarios, but gerrymandering has often been a useful
tool to the more powerful hiding under democratic slogans. (And, of course,
with only 5% of the Palestinian population, it makes it a lot easier to find ways
of making life in Area C difficult as an incentive to move on, or as is being
done in the Hevron area and east of Jerusalem, actually forcing people out.
Given enough time, we may even get area C to be completely
"Arab-Rein".)

Your disregard for negotiations regarding the
so-called East Jerusalem is also inexplicable to a Palestinian. You obviously
know that East Jerusalem before and up until 67' was less than 10% of what it
is in land area today. The great majority of today's East Jerusalem was the annexation
of many villages in the vicinity. Your proposal ignores these annexations
completely…… not even giving them a right to vote democratically, as you think
you are doing with other areas. Your proposal has Jerusalem's annexations being
unilaterally part of Israel.

There are certainly other parts of your well-meaning
proposals that could not be accepted by Palestinians. There are also parts that
would be anathema to most Israelis, but I shall skip that issue. Anyways, being
settlements and East Jerusalem are core issues with the Palestinians, and being
that your proposals seem to be completely divorced of these issues, I would
imagine Palestinians could not take them seriously.

As I read over what I have written to you, I find so
much missing and so much left unanswered. But I have already taken up too much
of your time (if you still managed to stay awake till here). I hadn't realized
how lengthy this was, and how rambling it sounds at times. I wish I could, like
some other people, say it all clearly in one-tenth the space. No can do.
Perhaps that ,too, is the problem of today's marginal Leftees.

It seems to me that the latest legal committee findings
are more like legal overkill in response to what is going on in the United
Nations and in the international law institutions and academies. Having
immersed myself in much of that material, I have come to the conclusion that
today there is a continuation of the fine old tradition of international law,
dating back to British use of international law to legitimize its policies in
the 19th century. International Law is being selectively used
to lend an aura of legitimacy to governmental policies that are based on
good old national interest. I suspect that is one of the reasons why
International law is not and has never been a stepping stone to world government
or even world peace. In that light the Levi Committee's report does two
things. First it jumps into the International Law debate, which may keep the
propagandists busy for a while but doesn't substantially alter very much as the
future of the settlement project will be dealt with as a political rather than
a legal issue. Second, and this is the part you missed, it ends the ability of
the settlers to unilaterally act on their own in setting up new settlements.
The government is clearly in charge and that is the case whether the
government is right, left or center. Once again, though discussing everything
in legal terms the Levi Committee dumps the whole settlement issue back into
the political arena, where it belongs, at least in my opinion.

I read your comments about the end of the two-state
solution and I understand your disappointment. I would like to point out that
the alleged end of this idea (I wouldn't write it off just yet) is being
cheered by those on the extreme right and on the extreme left both in
Israel and among the Palestinians and their supposed sympathizers. In the
Israeli center, where I think most Israelis are located, no one is particularly
interested in Greater Israel or in keeping most of the territories. I have a
lot of complaints about the way Israeli leaders managed the peace process with
Shamir (R.I.P.) and Bibi running neck and neck for who was the worst. But the
Palestinian leadership including Abbas, Arafat, Haniyah and all the rest, have
been absolute disasters when it comes to negotiating a peace agreement with
Israel, making even Bibi look good, and that's quite an achievement. Salam
Fayyad is the only one who shows that he has any motivation to achieve
Palestinian statehood and he doesn't have the political base to get much of
anywhere.

Aaron, the truth of the matter is that since the
beginning of this conflict about 90 years ago, the Palestinians have not had
much of an idea about what they wanted for themselves but have been quite
single minded about what they don't want for us. This negativity has prevented
them from accepting any compromise, no matter how beneficial to themselves,
because none of the compromises allowed for the destruction of Jewish national
self-determination. The very idea of a Palestinian state was first originated
in the Arab League as an instrument designed to lead to Israel's destruction.
That many Palestinians picked up on this idea as a means of structuring a
better life for themselves in a future state of their own gave me hope that through
the two-state idea a solution to this conflict so that all sides would benefit
could be found. I think that in the final analysis, the peace process fell
apart because the Palestinian leadership (or enough of it) could not reconcile
itself to Israel's continued existence.

My guess is that most Israelis, especially those engaged
in the social issues demonstrations, have reached the conclusion that nothing
can be done until the Palestinians are ready for peace with Israel. The Israeli
peace movement fell apart, again in my opinion, over a single fact. The
Palestinians did not react in the way the peace movement predicted given the
offers made by Israel in the negotiations. Some of the peace movement
finds solace in denial of this fact. But for most, the situation is crystal
clear and they have concluded that it is time to move onto other issues.

Aaron, about a year ago I came up with my own principles
for a peace agreement. I showed it around on several forums and got almost no
response from Palestinians. Their sympathizers responded with rejection. I will
include it below and would appreciate your telling me as a person of peace or
as a person in favor of a two-state solution what's wrong with it.

Efraim

Principles for a Palestinian-Israeli Peace Agreement

The following should be viewed as a set of general
proposals or Principles upon which a peace agreement to be negotiated between
the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority should be based. It is my
opinion that the Palestinian party to the negotiation should be a Palestinian
State. However at the moment one does not exist and my preference is to work
with what exists now rather than add the complicating issue of statehood for
the Palestinians to the situation. It should be recognized that the end result
of the proposed principles is, among other things, Palestinian statehood.

The principles below do not constitute a peace agreement.
The details of such an agreement would be worked out through direct
negotiations between the two parties. The principles are based on generally
accepted practices under international law, precedents of existing successfully
functioning political arrangements and institutions and, where possible,
reciprocity. The principles are also based on lessons drawn from past attempts,
both successes and failures, of peacemaking efforts in the Middle East and
elsewhere. The order of these principles is not random but represents the order
of each element of agreement which, in my opinion, must be concluded before the
next can be negotiated.

1. The agreement will be an end of
conflict agreement. Once negotiated, signed and properly ratified, no
additional claims or demands by either party can be made against the other.

2. The Palestinian Authority will
formally recognize the legitimacy of the national aspirations of the Jewish
people and the Israeli state will formally recognize the legitimacy of the
national aspirations of the Palestinian Arab people. The Palestinian and
Israeli governments will undertake all necessary educational and cultural steps
to ensure that such legitimacy is accepted by the citizenry of both states.

3. The land boundaries will be
based on current residency, contiguity, dual citizenship, reciprocity and
self-determination. Areas of the territory on the Jordanian side of the 1949
Armistice lines containing a majority of Jewish residents and contiguous with
the 1949 Armistice lines will be demarcated and the populations within those
territories will, by democratic vote, decide whether to be annexed to the State
of Israel or annexed to the State of Palestine. Jewish residents outside of those
areas will be offered the option of dual citizenship in the Palestinian and
Israeli states. They will also be offered the option of moving to areas of
Israeli sovereignty, the costs of such moves to be borne by the Israeli
government.

4. Areas of similar size on the
Israeli side of and contiguous with the 1949 Armistice lines containing
majorities of Arab residents will also be demarcated. The populations of those
areas will decide, by democratic vote, whether to be annexed to the State of
Palestine or annexed to the State of Israel. Arab residents outside of those
areas will be offered dual citizenship in the State of Israel and the State of
Palestine. They will also be offered the option of moving to areas of
Palestinian sovereignty, the costs of such moves to be borne by the Palestinian
government.

5. When the democratic decisions
of the relevant populations have been made an international border recognized by both states
will be demarcated, taking into account the democratic plebiscites in the areas
designated in paragraphs 3 and 4.

6. The city of Jerusalem will be
placed under the sovereignty of the State of Israel. Arab residents of
Jerusalem will be offered dual citizenship in the State of Israel and the State
of Palestine.

7. Areas of Jerusalem designated
as Muslim holy sites will be governed under an extra-territorial regime,
modeled after that of the Vatican State in Rome. The Organization of the
Islamic Conference, upon agreement, will administer this extraterritorial area.
Along with administrative personnel there will also be an Islamic Guard Force
which will be responsible, in cooperation with the Israeli civilian police and
judicial authorities, for the security of the area. The Islamic Guard will consist
of 313 personnel commanded by an officer selected by the State of Palestine.
The personnel will be provided equally by each member state of the Organization
of the Islamic Conference which has diplomatic relations with the State of
Israel and establishes an embassy to the State of Israel in the City of Jerusalem. The States of Egypt and Jordan will not be
required to establish an embassy in Jerusalem in order to participate in the Islamic Guard
Force.

8. The State of Israel and the
State of Palestine will sign a mutual defense treaty. Under that treaty any
foreign military force which enters the State of Palestine for any reason will
be considered as an act of aggression against the State of Palestine and the
State of Israel. The State of Palestine will create and maintain a civilian
police force of a size that its government shall determine as necessary for domestic
security. The State of Palestinian will establish an armed force of a size to
be determined by its government. This armed force will not possess any
offensive military weapons. The designation of what constitutes offensive
weapons is to be determined in negotiations between the Palestinian Authority
and the State of Israel and will be an integral part of the peace agreement.
Negotiations between the State of Palestine and the State or Israel
aimed at revising such designations may be requested at five year intervals or
when seen necessary by either party. Such revisions as may be made will require
the agreement of both parties.

9. Immigration into the State of
Palestine will be subject to the Laws of that state. Immigration into the State
of Israel will be subject to the laws of that state.

10. All economic, trade and other agreements will be
concluded by the Israeli and Palestinian sovereign governments once the peace
agreement has been signed and ratified by the relevant authorities.

11. Upon ratification of the peace agreement by both
parties, the State of Israel will recommend full membership for the State of
Palestine in the United Nations Organization to the United Nations Security
Council.

The eleven principles suggested above are offered as a
possible guide to implement what has become known as a two-state solution to
the Israel-Palestine conflict. They are not meant to result in a peace
agreement to die for but in a peace agreement with which everyone can live.